1astropi
Just starting a separate thread for the new DLE.
EP reprints the classic edition:
http://www.eastonpressbooks.com/leather/product.asp?code=2815
Now of course, comes the poll (yay)!
EP reprints the classic edition:
http://www.eastonpressbooks.com/leather/product.asp?code=2815
Now of course, comes the poll (yay)!
Vote: Barring any problems with quality control, do you think this is an edition you are likely to purchase?
Current tally: Yes 4, No 15, Undecided 4
2Ealhmund
I voted no. The 'standard' 19th century English translations of Verne's works are a travesty, and had a lot to do with Verne's works being relegated to the realm of children's fiction in English speaking countries.
So, unless you're buying it just for it's looks and illustrations, I'd suggest you pass and buy good, new translations of Verne's best works by Walter James Miller or William Butcher. You'll have several of Verne's works in a very fine, readable translation, and have money left over.
Os.
So, unless you're buying it just for it's looks and illustrations, I'd suggest you pass and buy good, new translations of Verne's best works by Walter James Miller or William Butcher. You'll have several of Verne's works in a very fine, readable translation, and have money left over.
Os.
3UK_History_Fan
Do we know who the translator is for the EP DLE?
4AnnieMod
Considering that it will reproduce the 19th century edition, it should be Mercier's. Which kinda makes the whole thing laughable - unless if you want the exact edition for some reason of course.
5Quicksilver66
> 2
I agree. I am passing up on this edition for the same reason. Verne was very poorly served by his 19th century translators - more so than even Dumas. I can't bring myself to spend a significant sum on such a poor translation. I am also happy with the edition I have from the Greatest Books series.
I agree. I am passing up on this edition for the same reason. Verne was very poorly served by his 19th century translators - more so than even Dumas. I can't bring myself to spend a significant sum on such a poor translation. I am also happy with the edition I have from the Greatest Books series.
6UK_History_Fan
David, do you happen to remember who translated the 100 Greatest version?
Also, I am wondering if you or others could be more specific on what is displeasing about this translation. Was it just clunky or inaccurate? I realize there are preferred translation of just about every classic work not originally written in English (and modernizations for some that were!), but I guess I am wondering if it is really so bad as to be a deal-breaker for the entire volume.
Also, I am wondering if you or others could be more specific on what is displeasing about this translation. Was it just clunky or inaccurate? I realize there are preferred translation of just about every classic work not originally written in English (and modernizations for some that were!), but I guess I am wondering if it is really so bad as to be a deal-breaker for the entire volume.
7Quicksilver66
> 6
Sean
I believe this is the same classic 19th century translation in the 100 Greatest, the difference being the 100 Greatest edition is at a more palatable price (and a beautiful book at that price as well, one of the nicest I have received in the 100 Greatest Series so far). This classic translation cuts one quarter of the French text. It is apparently a clumsy read with mistranslations and a lot of the political and anti-colonial nuances are left out (perhaps deliberately as it was a British translation).
Sean
I believe this is the same classic 19th century translation in the 100 Greatest, the difference being the 100 Greatest edition is at a more palatable price (and a beautiful book at that price as well, one of the nicest I have received in the 100 Greatest Series so far). This classic translation cuts one quarter of the French text. It is apparently a clumsy read with mistranslations and a lot of the political and anti-colonial nuances are left out (perhaps deliberately as it was a British translation).
8astropi
2: very interesting and important! By the way, does anyone (Django?) know the translation on the LEC edition, which I believe was used by EP for their 100 Greatest. Thanks.
9Tom41
Here is what I found out on the translations:
EP 100 Greatest - Lewis Mercier
FL 100 Greatest - Mendor T. Brunetti
I asked EP who translated the DLE. The rep got back to me later and told me the book did not list the translator, but they believed it is the 1871 translation by Lewis Mercier. To me it seems strange that they would publish such an expensive book without knowing for certain who translated it.
Editied to correct spelling.
EP 100 Greatest - Lewis Mercier
FL 100 Greatest - Mendor T. Brunetti
I asked EP who translated the DLE. The rep got back to me later and told me the book did not list the translator, but they believed it is the 1871 translation by Lewis Mercier. To me it seems strange that they would publish such an expensive book without knowing for certain who translated it.
Editied to correct spelling.
10Ealhmund
>6 UK_History_Fan: Re: what's wrong with the Mercier's translation.
1. Large portions were simply left out. Some because they contained long descriptions of the undersea world that Mercier thought would not interest English readers. Some because they conflicted with his religious views and/or his understanding of creation from the Bible.
2. He was sloppy. It is thought that he had others working with him on the translation and his lack of care resulted in some jarring transitions from one translator to the other. For example, there's a scene early in Chapter III where Mercier correctly translates a statement by the narrator that his servant, Conseil, "would never speak to me but in the third person." Just two paragraphs later, Conseil makes his first appearance and says, in the translation, "Did you call, sir?"!! [emphasis added]
To quote Walter James Miller , "First, the English version of Verne has been fumigated of much of his intellectual, adult message. And Verne's oeuvre has been damaged immeasurably as art."
Miller quotes another writer (not sure whom; perhaps himself) in saying "Passages omitted from these 'standard translations' are often Verne's most heavily political, philosophical, and scientific passages. They include some of Verne's finest literary efforts, too."
Miller claims that some of Verne's works in English are missing 30 to 40 percent of their original content.
Os.
1. Large portions were simply left out. Some because they contained long descriptions of the undersea world that Mercier thought would not interest English readers. Some because they conflicted with his religious views and/or his understanding of creation from the Bible.
2. He was sloppy. It is thought that he had others working with him on the translation and his lack of care resulted in some jarring transitions from one translator to the other. For example, there's a scene early in Chapter III where Mercier correctly translates a statement by the narrator that his servant, Conseil, "would never speak to me but in the third person." Just two paragraphs later, Conseil makes his first appearance and says, in the translation, "Did you call, sir?"!! [emphasis added]
To quote Walter James Miller , "First, the English version of Verne has been fumigated of much of his intellectual, adult message. And Verne's oeuvre has been damaged immeasurably as art."
Miller quotes another writer (not sure whom; perhaps himself) in saying "Passages omitted from these 'standard translations' are often Verne's most heavily political, philosophical, and scientific passages. They include some of Verne's finest literary efforts, too."
Miller claims that some of Verne's works in English are missing 30 to 40 percent of their original content.
Os.
12ABVR
The 1993 edition translated and edited Walter James Miller and Frederick Paul Walter -- the gold standard, I think -- is, alas, only out in paperback (from Naval Institute Press).
13Ealhmund
>11 kdweber:, 12
I have a 1976 hardcover edition (Walter James Miller, trans.) in what is billed as "The Only Completely Restored and Annotated Edition", which I'd highly recommend (details here).
I also have a 1993 hardcover edition published by Naval Institute Press and translated by Walter James Miller and Frederick Paul Walter, billed as "The Definitive, Unabridged Edition based on the Original French Texts" (details here). This one, however, is not annotated.
I acquired them both on the used book market.
Oxford Univ. Press has issued some modern translations of Verne's works in paperback. The three I have (Around the World in Eighty Days, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and The Adventures of Captain Hatteras) are all translated by William Butcher. I'd love to have Butcher's translations in hardcover, but I've not found them. I think they've also published 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in Butcher's translation. There may be other Verne works in this series (Oxford World Classics).
I invite you to look at my library and search on Jules Verne - here's a link that should do it: http://www.librarything.com/catalog/Osbaldistone&collection=1&deepsearch.... You'll find my OUP editions as well as editions of the older, standard translations, and also a few works only recently available in English (Humbug: The American Way of Life, an e-book; the recently discovered Paris in the Twentieth Century; Lighthouse at the End of the World, the first english translation of verne's original manuscript; and Backwards to Britain). Verne's works were some of the first books I entered in LT, and they all need some updating to include new features/fields. But I think there's enough info there for you to find publication info on any that you're interested in.
Os.
I have a 1976 hardcover edition (Walter James Miller, trans.) in what is billed as "The Only Completely Restored and Annotated Edition", which I'd highly recommend (details here).
I also have a 1993 hardcover edition published by Naval Institute Press and translated by Walter James Miller and Frederick Paul Walter, billed as "The Definitive, Unabridged Edition based on the Original French Texts" (details here). This one, however, is not annotated.
I acquired them both on the used book market.
Oxford Univ. Press has issued some modern translations of Verne's works in paperback. The three I have (Around the World in Eighty Days, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and The Adventures of Captain Hatteras) are all translated by William Butcher. I'd love to have Butcher's translations in hardcover, but I've not found them. I think they've also published 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in Butcher's translation. There may be other Verne works in this series (Oxford World Classics).
I invite you to look at my library and search on Jules Verne - here's a link that should do it: http://www.librarything.com/catalog/Osbaldistone&collection=1&deepsearch.... You'll find my OUP editions as well as editions of the older, standard translations, and also a few works only recently available in English (Humbug: The American Way of Life, an e-book; the recently discovered Paris in the Twentieth Century; Lighthouse at the End of the World, the first english translation of verne's original manuscript; and Backwards to Britain). Verne's works were some of the first books I entered in LT, and they all need some updating to include new features/fields. But I think there's enough info there for you to find publication info on any that you're interested in.
Os.
14UK_History_Fan
> 9
That is disappointing but not surprising. They tend to care much more about marketing books than they do about the books themselves. EP is notoriously remiss in identifying translators. I had to enter a few lines of verse into an internet search engine to figure out that the Divine Comedy with Gustave Dore illustrations (ok, granted, this was originally a Chartwell book, but would it have killed them to list the translator on the title page?!?) was the Longfellow translation.
I am unaware of TTLUS being a Franklin Library title, unless it is one of those super secret 25 extension volumes you received, which if I remember correctly were actually borred from the World's Best-Loved Books Series.
> 13
This poor translation controversy has definitely enlightened me but I'm afraid it is really turning me off to this particular DLE. $267 is a lot to shell out for something that will need a second book purchase just to fully appreciate the story. The political, philosophical and scientific parts are likely the most interesting bits as well, so a shame that they have been excised.
Do you happen to know if one of these "corrected" modern translations are available as an e-book? My library shelves are groaning from overstuffing.
That is disappointing but not surprising. They tend to care much more about marketing books than they do about the books themselves. EP is notoriously remiss in identifying translators. I had to enter a few lines of verse into an internet search engine to figure out that the Divine Comedy with Gustave Dore illustrations (ok, granted, this was originally a Chartwell book, but would it have killed them to list the translator on the title page?!?) was the Longfellow translation.
I am unaware of TTLUS being a Franklin Library title, unless it is one of those super secret 25 extension volumes you received, which if I remember correctly were actually borred from the World's Best-Loved Books Series.
> 13
This poor translation controversy has definitely enlightened me but I'm afraid it is really turning me off to this particular DLE. $267 is a lot to shell out for something that will need a second book purchase just to fully appreciate the story. The political, philosophical and scientific parts are likely the most interesting bits as well, so a shame that they have been excised.
Do you happen to know if one of these "corrected" modern translations are available as an e-book? My library shelves are groaning from overstuffing.
15Tom41
>14 UK_History_Fan: Yes, it is; same translatoer as in Best Loved Books.
16SilentInAWay
14>
The funny thing is, although Longfellow is mentioned nowhere in the book, EP's web site describes the book as "the classic Longfellow translation"
The funny thing is, although Longfellow is mentioned nowhere in the book, EP's web site describes the book as "the classic Longfellow translation"
17Dill_the_Collector
>14 UK_History_Fan:
I have two editions of TTLUS by Franklin Library. One is in "The World's Best Loved Books" series (1978 full leather) with nice original (I think) illustrations by Peter Fiore. The other edition I have is a quarter leather (no particular series stated - 1983) with the Neuville/Riou/Heldibrand illustrations that I think are the same used in this EP DLE.
I have two editions of TTLUS by Franklin Library. One is in "The World's Best Loved Books" series (1978 full leather) with nice original (I think) illustrations by Peter Fiore. The other edition I have is a quarter leather (no particular series stated - 1983) with the Neuville/Riou/Heldibrand illustrations that I think are the same used in this EP DLE.
19Tom41
>17 Dill_the_Collector: Mine is from the FL 100 Greatest 25-vol. extension. It is full leather with 18 Neuville/Riou/Hildibrand illustrations, reproductions from the first edition published in 1870.
As an added note, the EP 100Greatest editions has 325 pages, whereas my FL copy has 424 pages, a significant difference in the translation. There are also several translator's footnotes throughout the book. I recall that when I last read it in the 80's I found it extremely boring.
As an added note, the EP 100Greatest editions has 325 pages, whereas my FL copy has 424 pages, a significant difference in the translation. There are also several translator's footnotes throughout the book. I recall that when I last read it in the 80's I found it extremely boring.
20UK_History_Fan
> 19
Tom, you are killing me!!! We spend the better part of two days debating the worth of various translations, and then you come in with the zinger that reminds us no one has yet asked the most pertinent question. Is the book even a good read in any language or translation? Ha!
Tom, you are killing me!!! We spend the better part of two days debating the worth of various translations, and then you come in with the zinger that reminds us no one has yet asked the most pertinent question. Is the book even a good read in any language or translation? Ha!
21Tom41
Here is a link to reviews of seveal translations:
http://www.najvs.org/works/V006_VL.shtml
It seems that the Mercier Lewis translation is the absolute worst. Apparently EP doesn't care about the literary quality of their DLE's. Any old facsimile will do!
>20 UK_History_Fan: I think I'll re-read the book. After 30 years I may appreciate it more.
http://www.najvs.org/works/V006_VL.shtml
It seems that the Mercier Lewis translation is the absolute worst. Apparently EP doesn't care about the literary quality of their DLE's. Any old facsimile will do!
>20 UK_History_Fan: I think I'll re-read the book. After 30 years I may appreciate it more.
22Django6924
I read the novel some 40 years ago and agree with the "boring" assessment. Of course I was coming off my memories of the Disney movie which was tremendously exciting to me when I was a boy. (It hasn't fared as well, either.)
When I picked up Heritage Press editions of Verne about 10 years ago (seduced by E.A. Wilson's illustrations, I tried to read TTLUTS again, but could not get through it.
When I picked up Heritage Press editions of Verne about 10 years ago (seduced by E.A. Wilson's illustrations, I tried to read TTLUTS again, but could not get through it.
23Ealhmund
>19 Tom41:, 20
I read the annotated Miller translation about 10 years ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it. However, this is not so much an adventure/thriller but an imagined travelogue. It consists of exciting episodes separated by detailed and spectacular descriptions of the undersea world (a mixture of scientific knowledge of the day and Verne's imagination). I found both the descriptive passages and the events described quite fascinating. However, I imagine if one took on TTLUTS expecting it all to be like the Disney movie, it could be quite a let-down. Much like novels of the 19th century, where much time is taken to develop the scene and the characters/relationships.
Os.
I read the annotated Miller translation about 10 years ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it. However, this is not so much an adventure/thriller but an imagined travelogue. It consists of exciting episodes separated by detailed and spectacular descriptions of the undersea world (a mixture of scientific knowledge of the day and Verne's imagination). I found both the descriptive passages and the events described quite fascinating. However, I imagine if one took on TTLUTS expecting it all to be like the Disney movie, it could be quite a let-down. Much like novels of the 19th century, where much time is taken to develop the scene and the characters/relationships.
Os.
24indigosky
23: I agree with Os. I read it when I was 12, and loved it. It was my favorite book for many years.
25AnnieMod
I loved the book when I read it (in a different language...). I've read the old English translation and it misses a lot of the good moments...
26wtim
Do you think anyone who buys these deluxe books ever reads them or is it just likely to sit on a shelf looking pretty? I was seriously considering purchasing this book until I found this thread. Thanks for enlightening me on the translation. I much prefer the correct translations. And , yes, if I had this DLE I would read it.
27UK_History_Fan
> 26
As the proud owner of several EP DLEs and Folio Society LEs, I think your point is quite valid. I do intend to read mine someday, but unlike most of my library, these books will never join me on my daily commute through Chicago's public transit system! I think the answer to your question largely depends on the size as well as the easy availability of alternative sources for the text. For example, the Faerie Queene limited edition from Folio will primarily be admired for its beautiful craftsmanship and copious illustrations. When I sit down to actually read the text, I will use my Heritage Press copy. The sheer size of some of the limited editions make them impractical for reading. But I definitely see myself reading the limited edition versions of say The Prince and the Pauper and The Romance of King Arthur.
As the proud owner of several EP DLEs and Folio Society LEs, I think your point is quite valid. I do intend to read mine someday, but unlike most of my library, these books will never join me on my daily commute through Chicago's public transit system! I think the answer to your question largely depends on the size as well as the easy availability of alternative sources for the text. For example, the Faerie Queene limited edition from Folio will primarily be admired for its beautiful craftsmanship and copious illustrations. When I sit down to actually read the text, I will use my Heritage Press copy. The sheer size of some of the limited editions make them impractical for reading. But I definitely see myself reading the limited edition versions of say The Prince and the Pauper and The Romance of King Arthur.
28astropi
26: that's a good question, and myself I read all the books I purchase. I think a beautifully crafted book is mean to be read and admired at the same time.
29WinterGloaming
>26 wtim:
I only own one DLE but I will for sure read it someday, I never buy a book just for decoration.
I only own one DLE but I will for sure read it someday, I never buy a book just for decoration.
30Dill_the_Collector
> 26
All my EP and FL books are purchased solely for the purposes of sitting on my shelf and looking pretty (and to hold/smell -not unlike a beautiful woman).
When I actually read a book (novels I mean), I entirely prefer a small, light, cheap, paperback, that I can fold and abuse without guilt.
All my EP and FL books are purchased solely for the purposes of sitting on my shelf and looking pretty (and to hold/smell -not unlike a beautiful woman).
When I actually read a book (novels I mean), I entirely prefer a small, light, cheap, paperback, that I can fold and abuse without guilt.
31ironjaw
>30 Dill_the_Collector: I guess everyone has their own preference. Although I cherish my collection and handle them very carefully, I am a reader first, collector second, so I read my books when I get them. I can't imagine buying another copy - inferior in production - to read, when the whole experience of buying the said EP, FL or FS books is to read a far better, maybe illustrated copy. But then again it also depends how much you are paying for the inferior copy as books around here are very expensive.
32Svartalf
I am mixed on this; I only buy books that I intend to read *someday*, but to be honest out of the whole body of fine press books that I now have, I've only read about 5%-10%. For the moment the majority of them are just sitting on shelf and looking pretty, but perhaps one day (when i retire / win a lottery..etc..) I will read them all. The problem is, I just can't read as fast as I can buy and now since I purchased Skyrim for PS3, that free time that I would have used for reading has decreased significantly.
33Quicksilver66
I buy all my FS and EP books with the intention of reading them all - some day. EP books, being bound in leather, are very robust and I have no hesitation taking them out and about with me and reading them on the train. I do the same with my FS books, but I find some of their bindings less robust and protect them with plastic covers if I am going to leave the house with them. The big LE's are strictly for home use however.
34UK_History_Fan
> 33
Interesting David, that you find the leather bindings "robust." I find them all too susceptible to damage during transit (though I still take them with me as I cannot forgo 2 hours per day of reading time en route). And god forbid anyone should stand over you with a wet umbrella dripping. This actually happened to me. That is how I learned the hard way that the gilt page ends become permanently marked and discolored with even the smallest exposure to water. I usually just keep the book in my bag if it is raining or snowing out for that reason. Luckily, it rarely rains during rush hour here in Chicago for some reason.
Oh and welcome back. I was beginning to wonder where you disappeared to. I was beginning to fear you'd been put off by the recent rash of trite discussions. It almost made me take a sabbatical but then I chose to ignore the topics instead.
Interesting David, that you find the leather bindings "robust." I find them all too susceptible to damage during transit (though I still take them with me as I cannot forgo 2 hours per day of reading time en route). And god forbid anyone should stand over you with a wet umbrella dripping. This actually happened to me. That is how I learned the hard way that the gilt page ends become permanently marked and discolored with even the smallest exposure to water. I usually just keep the book in my bag if it is raining or snowing out for that reason. Luckily, it rarely rains during rush hour here in Chicago for some reason.
Oh and welcome back. I was beginning to wonder where you disappeared to. I was beginning to fear you'd been put off by the recent rash of trite discussions. It almost made me take a sabbatical but then I chose to ignore the topics instead.
35Quicksilver66
> 34
Thanks Sean. I have not posted as much recently, but I have not gone away. As I explained to Ironjaw, when the winter arrives and we have nice crisp clear nights I tend to go over board in my indulgence of my other passion, which is amateur astronomy. A few late cold nights out with my eye glued to the telescope leaves my fit for nothing else. Even books and Librarything have to take second place.
Thanks Sean. I have not posted as much recently, but I have not gone away. As I explained to Ironjaw, when the winter arrives and we have nice crisp clear nights I tend to go over board in my indulgence of my other passion, which is amateur astronomy. A few late cold nights out with my eye glued to the telescope leaves my fit for nothing else. Even books and Librarything have to take second place.
36Tugar
Wow. Thinking about returning mine after reading about the translation. It should arrive early next week.
37astropi
36: but on the other hand it has the amazing illustrations from the first printing. I have not ordered a copy myself, but it sounds like you win visually but lose literally.
38UK_History_Fan
> 37
Agreed, which is why I'm still on the fence about this one. Plus the two most recent DLE releases, Night and Fairy Tales take much higher precedence over 20,000 Leagues, Life of Napoleon, and Three Musketeers, none of which have I ruled out completely. I was sort of hoping one of them would sell out before I decide to help make the decision for me and limit my options!
Agreed, which is why I'm still on the fence about this one. Plus the two most recent DLE releases, Night and Fairy Tales take much higher precedence over 20,000 Leagues, Life of Napoleon, and Three Musketeers, none of which have I ruled out completely. I was sort of hoping one of them would sell out before I decide to help make the decision for me and limit my options!
39astropi
38: my prediction is that Night and Fairy Tales will sell out rather quickly. The others will take longer, but you never know.
41indigosky
I didn't take photos of the clamshell case, but it is pretty boring. It is very similar to the Prince & Pauper case, but this one has nothing on it. No title or writing of any kind. I thought that was odd.
42Quicksilver66
Wow. That looks beautiful.
44UK_History_Fan
indigosky, thank you so much for posting these pictures. I'm still officially on the fence about this one but honestly the book externals look much more impressive than I had imagined. I also like the marbled endpapers which strike me as richer than the last couple of offerings I've seen. I can't help but notice though that the first two pictures above after the title page appear to be not well printed with inconsistent application of ink. Is this just lighting or did you notice this in real life? The picture just above the beginning of Chapter 1 looks faded and the text not much darker and the line underneath "Conclusion" in the next picture appears thinner in some places than others (and almost broken about 1/4 of the way in from the left hand side). What were your "in the flesh" impressions of the print quality? I don't know how EP actually produces these, but if it is some type of photographic reproduction of the original I imagine the source book had the same flaws. This was something that bothered me about Dore's London (which overall seems to be higher quality printing of text than depicted here). Still, I find it rather disappointing at this price point unless it is a trick of the photograph. Again, I appreciate the pictures and the quick sharing with us, so please do not take personally any of the above as criticism of the pictures, I understand how just a small change in lighting can completely adjust the levels on an auto-adjust camera such as I have.
45Django6924
>44 UK_History_Fan:
This kind of printing, described as "uneven application of ink" is one of the problems encountered often in older books. Especially noted in books produced in huge quantities, as I'm sure Verne's were, it is even found in fine press, limited editions of books--I recently remarked on the LEC Anna Karenina from 1933 which exhibited this (though to a much lesser degree than we see here). In the days before polymer plates and continuous-feed systems of modern inks, it took diligence and a willingness to stop the presses and check the makeready to assure the uniform density of ink over the type.
This kind of printing, described as "uneven application of ink" is one of the problems encountered often in older books. Especially noted in books produced in huge quantities, as I'm sure Verne's were, it is even found in fine press, limited editions of books--I recently remarked on the LEC Anna Karenina from 1933 which exhibited this (though to a much lesser degree than we see here). In the days before polymer plates and continuous-feed systems of modern inks, it took diligence and a willingness to stop the presses and check the makeready to assure the uniform density of ink over the type.
46indigosky
44: You are correct that the printing is uneven. I understand your concern, and I took no offense. Personally, it does not bother me because it makes the book look "old fashioned". It wouldn't be a true reproduction of an antique book if the text was printed perfectly even like a modern printing machine. I believe it had to have been deliberate. The pages that EP inserted themselves (copyright page & the page with the limitation number, paper type and leather info) has perfectly even printing.
I guess the same goes for the translation as well. It wouldn't be much of a reproduction of the original if a different translation was used. So, I think it is not an exact reproduction of an original book that you want.
I guess the same goes for the translation as well. It wouldn't be much of a reproduction of the original if a different translation was used. So, I think it is not an exact reproduction of an original book that you want.
47SilentInAWay
When it comes to translations, accuracy can sometimes be overrated -- I certainly wouldn't condemn the King James Bible to oblivion, with all its poetic inaccuracies.
Join to post
